Pelosi to College Graduates: Don't Worry About Healthcare Anymore Because We Passed ObamaCare

In an interview done in front of a graduating class of college students at a small women's college in California, yesterday, Pelosi doubled down on her previous statement that people should not have to worry about quitting their jobs to "pursue their passions" because Uncle Sam will take care of them, if they get sick. Now, she tells the Mills College's Class of 2010 that they don't have to worry about the cost of their family's healthcare because she's taking care of it:

(Healthcare reform)'s urgent for many reasons, one of which I said in the speech: it frees us up to be entrepreneurial, to take risks without worrying about the health of our children being affected by our personal decisions to pursue our passions. It's important in terms of our competitiveness internationally. If you're talking about competing with countries in the industrialized, developed world, they don't have healthcare costs. Their societies have that as a priority. Here, we won't have the same kind of healthcare availability because it's still a private sector initiative. But that's O.K. because it's facilitated to be made more affordable in a public way. So it is important now A): because it is long over due; B): it makes us more competitive; C): makes us a healthier and therefore stronger nation and it is specially important to women at this time because women are by and large the caregivers and they are going to inherit that role, it's important that healthcare be as accessible and affordable as possible. I'm very, very proud of it, it was very hard to do, it would not have happened without President Obama, but I never, never once thought that it wouldn't happen.

This comes off the heels of the story coming out Canada, the country who currently has a model of socialized healthcare that most closely resembles what ObamCare will look like, that the government is worried about how the current system will be able to pay for the increasing costs of taking care of their ever-aging population:

In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.

Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.

Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.

But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.

"As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance ... one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed," said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.

Basically, the two main changes that they seem to be contemplating are new and/or raising taxes, of course, and "curtailing" their coverage of certain procedures that they don't deem "medically necessary" like leg, hip, and cataract surgeries. In fact, they're looking back to the private health industry to take care of those procedures. These don't seem like surgeries that anyone would feel is elective.

This is the road that we are about to embark on our way to socialized healthcare. It will only be a matter of time before our government will have to raise our taxes or cut corners on our healthcare, so they can attempt to make ObamaCare solvent.

So, don't worry about your healthcare, unless you have a broken hip, cataracts, or any other condition that Uncle Sam might possibly deem "medically unnecessary" in the future, because Aunt Pelosi's has you covered.

As a final insight, I'd like to point out that: it seems to me that the medical procedures that they are the most willing to call elective are most often the ones that are supposed to take care of ailments that plague our seniors, ie broken hips and cataracts. I'm just saying. Coincidence?!?

Canada: Private Health Care Is Making a Comeback As People Flee Canadians' "Public Option"

President Obama and Democrats are inching towards a single-payer healthcare system much like the one in Canada. However, many of the Canadians currently under the system seem to be looking for a way out:

Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.

Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

Long lines and wait times have long since been a failing of the Canadian system. Any wait time for medical treatment would be an enourmous frustration for anyone sick, dying, and in great pain. That is exactly what would happen if such a system was put in place in this country.

RINO California Governator "Happy" About Reckless Deficit Spending on Illegal Immigrants

Um, Arnie, isn't this kind of free spending what got your state on the edge of bankruptcy in the first place. How can you say that you're "happy" about it:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he's "happy" illegal immigrants get state services and says they're not to blame for California's $24.3 billion budget gap.

Top US Trading Partners Worried Over Obama, Democrats' Protectionist Policies

Last week, it was reported that Canadian officials have already started to fight back against possible American protectionism. Now, other European countries seem to be considering joining Canada in the trade war against Obama and the Democrats' "Buy American" provisions:

America's largest trading partners are warning that protectionist moves by Congress could poison global trade relations, despite President Barack Obama's assurances that he wants to keep U.S. markets open.

Businesses in the European Union and Canada complain they have been shut out of U.S. markets because of the "Buy American" provision in the massive stimulus bill, passed in February, which requires the use of U.S.-manufactured products.

EU and Canadian officials worry the practice is widening, as Congress is considering adding similar measures to other spending bills.

Here we go again. I'm getting flashbacks to the 1930's when Hoover and FDR's administrations implemented protectionist policies that deepened the depression and made it last years longer.

Labor unions are hugely in favor of this economically destructive policy. Since the Democrats are so beholden to the unions, they have no choice but to pass the protectionist policies to keep the unions happy no matter how bad it would be for the rest of Americans or the world. Unions drove GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy. Ford and the airline industry may not be far behind. The teacher's union is partly responsible for the decline in our kids school grades and the mass exodus from public schools to private schools. Now, they want to ruin the rest of the country.

Uh, oh!: Canada Fights Back Against Obama's "Buy American" Policy, Trade War Is Here

Obama and the Democrats included a "Buy American" provision in the porkulus bill which forces some of those who receive money from the stimulus to buy supplies only from American companies. That has sparked rumors of a trade war brewing. Now, the first sign of such a war has come:

Canadian mayors have passed a resolution that would potentially shut out U.S. bidders from local city contracts.

The resolution is in retaliation to "Buy American" provisions in President Barack Obama's stimulus bill.
Mayors voted 189-175 to approve the resolution at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference in Whistler, British Columbia.

The resolution says the federation should support cities that adopt policies that allow them to buy only from companies whose home countries do not impose trade restrictions against Canadian goods.

The mayors also voted to hold off on any action for 120 days while Canada is negotiating a possible compromise with the U.S. government.

Is this more of his "smart diplomacy" hard at work?

No matter how much Democrats and their buddies in the labor unions hate it, free trade between countries help the economy.

Plus, it promotes good will with our allies. It angers other nations when our goverment prevents our companies from doing business with companies internationally.

Is South Park located in Arizona? McCain Echoes Napolitano's Canadian Fiction

Did Arizona Not Receive 9/11 Commission Report? Did it get lost in the mail?

Has McCain not been paying any attention to the news lately? Did he not learn anything from Napolitano's mistake?

Arizona Sen. John McCain made the dubious claim Friday that Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada -- just days after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona, said the same thing.

I guess not.

But when asked about the gaffe on FOX News Friday, McCain said: "Well, some of the 9/11 hijackers did come through Canada, as you know."

Just like with Janet Napolitano, Canada wasn't amused:

(McCain's claim) drew an instant retort from the Canadian embassy, which re-issued Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson's public comments from Tuesday, in which he said: 

"Unfortunately, misconceptions arise on something as fundamental as where the 9/11 terrorists came from. As the 9/11 Commission reported in July 2004, all of the 9/11 terrorists arrived in the U.S. from outside North America. They flew to major U.S. airports. They entered the U.S. with documents issued to them by the U.S. government. No 9/11 terrorists came from Canada."

Way to go, John!

Did Natasha Richardson's Life End Prematurely Because of Canada's Healthcare?

CANADACARE MAY HAVE KILLED NATASHA
By CORY FRANKLIN


March 26, 2009 --
COULD actress Natasha Richardson's tragic death have been prevented if her skiing accident had occurred in America rather than Canada?

Canadian health care de-emphasizes widespread dissemination of technology like CT scanners and quick access to specialists like neurosurgeons. While all the facts of Richardson's medical care haven't been released, enough is known to pose questions with profound implications.

Richardson died of an epidural hematoma -- a bleeding artery between the skull and brain that compresses and ultimately causes fatal brain damage via pressure buildup. With prompt diagnosis by CT scan, and surgery to drain the blood, most patients survive.

Could Richardson have received this care? Where it happened in Canada, no. In many US resorts, yes.

Between noon and 1 p.m., Richardson sustained what appeared to be a trivial head injury while skiing at Mt. Tremblant in Quebec. Within minutes, she was offered medical assistance but declined to be seen by paramedics.

But this delay is common in the early stages of epidural hematoma when patients have few symptoms -- and there is reason to believe her case wasn't beyond hope at that point.

About three hours after the accident, the actress was taken to Centre Hospitalier Laurentien, in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, 25 miles from the resort. Hospital spokesman Alain Paquette said she was conscious upon reaching the hospital about 4 p.m.

The initial paramedic assessment, travel time to the hospital and time she spent there was nearly two hours -- the crucial interval in this case. Survival rates for patients with epidural hematomas, conscious on arrival to a hospital, are good.

Richardson's evaluation required an immediate CT scan for diagnosis -- followed by either a complete removal of accumulated blood by a neurosurgeon or a procedure by a trauma surgeon or emergency physician to relieve the pressure and allow her to be transported.

But Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts is a town of 9,000 people. Its hospital doesn't have specialized neurology or trauma services. It hasn't been reported whether the hospital has a CT scanner, but CT scanners are less common in Canada.

Compounding the problem, Quebec has no helicopter services to trauma centers in Montreal. Richardson was transferred by ambulance to Hospital du Sacre-Coeur, a trauma center 50 miles away in Montreal -- a further delay of over an hour.

Because she didn't arrive at a facility capable of treatment (with the diagnosis perhaps still unknown) until six hours after the injury, in all likelihood by that time the pressure buildup was fatal. The Montreal hospital could not have saved her life.

Her initial refusal of medical care accounted for only part of the delay. She was still conscious when seen at a hospital and her death might have been prevented if the hospital either had the resources to diagnose and institute temporizing therapy, or air transport had taken her quickly to Montreal.

What would have happened at a US ski resort? It obviously depends on the location and facts, but according to a colleague who has worked at two major Colorado ski resorts, the same distance from Denver as Mt. Tremblant is from Montreal, things would likely have proceeded differently.

Assuming Richardson initially declined medical care here as well, once she did present to caregivers that she was suffering from a possible head trauma, she would've been immediately transported by air, weather permitting, and arrived in Denver in less than an hour.

If this weren't possible, in both resorts she would've been seen within 15 minutes at a local facility with CT scanning and someone who could perform temporary drainage until transfer to a neurosurgeon was possible.

If she were conscious at 4 p.m., she'd most likely have been diagnosed and treated about that time, receiving care unavailable in the local Canadian hospital. She might've still died or suffered brain damage but her chances of surviving would have been much greater in the United States.

American medicine is often criticized for being too specialty-oriented, with hospitals "duplicating" too many services like CT scanners. This argument has merit, but those criticisms ignore cases where it is better to have resources and not need them than to need resources and not have them.

Cory Franklin is a physician who lives outside of Chicago. 2009 Chicago Tribune; distributed by Tribune Media Services.

---------------------------------------
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03262009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/canadacare_may_have_killed_natasha_161372.htm---------------------------------------

Friday, March 20, 2009
Natasha Richardson, Epidural Hemorrhage and No Help in Canada

The Death of Natasha Richardson

Kevin, M.D. today adduces that Natasha Richardson indeed had a CT of the brain at Centre Hospitalier Laurentien--after falling ill with a recent history of head trauma, but there was no neurosurgeon available to do a STAT craniotomy which would have saved her life; however, this is not a fault of the Canadian system:

in remote resort areas in the United States, small community hospitals would likely lack neurosurgical coverage. In fact, because of the huge malpractice risk associated with the field, even if there was a neurosurgeon available, whether he or she would take emergency call at a community hospital would be in question.

How Remote?

Mont Tremblant is one of the most recognized and popular ski resorts in the world. It is famous for celebrity sitings, and the rich and famous frequently take up seasonal residence there.

As of 2005, Mont Tremblant had been recognized by Ski Magazine as the #1 ski resort in Eastern North America for 8 consecutive years.

Given the popularity of the area and the nature of skiing and snowboarding, Natasha Richardson may be the most famous person that’s ever come down from Tremblant’s slopes needing emergency neurosurgery, but I doubt that she is the first.

According to JAMA :

...head injuries are common in alpine skiers and snowboarders. Head injury is the most frequent reason for hospital admission and the most common cause of death among skiers and snowboarders with an 8% fatality rate among those admitted to hospital with head injuries. Of the 3277 patients with injuries recorded, 578 patients (17.6%) had head injuries. Head injuries accounted for 288 (17.9%) of 1607 alpine skiing injuries, 248 (17.8%) of 1391 snowboard injuries, and 32 (17.9%) of 179 of Telemark skiing injuries.

Head injuries constitute only 5% to 15% of all injuries from ski and snowboard accidents, yet are the primary cause of serious disabling injuries and death. There are approximately 10 fatalities per year in Colorado from accidents on the ski slopes, and among the fatally injured in one study, head injury was the cause of death in 87.5%;

Another report lists the incidence of ski head injury incidence at 0.77 per 100 000 ski visits

And a mega-study estimated rate of one death per 1.5 million skier-days.

Comparable ski areas in the U.S. – say Vail and Park City – both list neurosurgeons in their cities. Vail, Colorado has a population of 4,589 and is home to 1 practicing neurosurgeon. Park City, Utah population 7,371 also lists 1 practising neurosurgeon.

So, ski resorts should probably think hard about neurosurgical availability, is my impression, but all of the above begs the real issue, which is the differences between the Canadian model for health care and ours -- and where ours is going.

Availability of Neurosurgeons

Kevin, M.D. rightly states that a neurosurgeon is probably just as unlikely to be available in a U.S. ski town, as in Canada, and that may be so but the reasons are diametrically the opposite.

Neurosurgeons are not so easy to find in Canada where subspecialization is not rewarded, and 50-60% of boarded neurosurgeons leave the country to practice somewhere else within 2 years of their certification.

The last good data I could find listed only 174 neurosurgeons in the entire country. In the U.S. we have 3,500. A study on the need of neurosurgeons listed the density of neurosurgeons in the U.S. to be about 1/55,000 people which means that an analogous number of neurosurgeons needed in Canada would be about 604.

It is true that neurosurgeons eschew emergency room coverage in the United States, but it is for completely different reasons than in Canada. Here, our ED’s don’t want to pay what it takes to hire a neurosurgeon for coverage; in Canada, no one wants to even be a neurosurgeon.

So, in a sense, the Candian model for health care failed Natasha Richardson because of an artificially created shortage of subspecialists, which is a purposeful design meant to keep costs low in a taxpayer-funded-system. The U.S. would very much like to go in this direction and the plan is to broaden non subspecialized care options while reducing higher-tech procedures, diagnostics and physicians.

But as we go towards a single-payer system, we can all expect that when we need it most, the system will not be there for us, as it was not there for Natasha Richardson.
Posted by Dr.T at 12:17 PM

---------------------------------------
http://tedstumor.blogspot.com/2009/03/natasha-richardson-epidural-hemorrhage_20.html
---------------------------------------

My Thoughts

As tragic as Natasha's death is, it is even more tragic if it could have been avoided. Liberals always think that they're doing what they do for the people. However, it usually ends up hurting people more than it helps. To add something else to the story, I will also say that Democrats keep saying that they will make healthcare cheaper. People need to remember that you get what you pay for. If they are paying less for healthcare that will probably mean that it is not as good and could cost you your life.

Socialist-in-Chief Extols Greatness of UK/Canada's Healthcare Systems

Video: Our “legacy” is all that separates us from Euro-Canada health care
posted at 2:47 pm on March 26, 2009
by Ed Morrissey

If you want a peek at the direction Barack Obama will take health care, or at least where he would like to take it, check out this moment from an otherwise dull, dreary “virtual town hall”.  Obama extols the virtues of single-payer systems in Europe and Canada while lamenting the “legacy” that keeps America from its nationalized destiny.

Obama’s right about the “historical accident” of employer based care, from which Obama obviously drew the wrong lesson.  Government intervention in markets — in this case, the labor market — produces strange and sometimes problematic results.  This was the very issue that John McCain wanted to address in his plans to make employer-financed health insurance taxable income while providing a balancing refundable that would have disconnected insurance from employment and created a new market for individual — and portable — plans.  Obama and the Democrats misrepresented McCain’s plans, and then turned around this month and suggested they might co-opt the McCain approach now.

As for his description of Canada and “England” as places where one just walks in and gets treatment, perhaps Obama should talk to more Canadians and “English”.  Most have to wait months for tests and treatments.  The British have a chronic lack of dentists and transplant surgeons, just to name two specialties, because of the lack of compensation for specializations.  Both have a healthy “health tourism” outflow of patients to countries that allow for free-market health care.  Most people in the systems that Obama hails would laugh outright at the notion that they get health care on demand.

Maybe Obama should do more research on Canada and “England”.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/video-our-legacy-is-all-that-separates-us-from-euro-canada-health-care/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

At last, it's refreshing for "The One" to tell us what he really wants for this country. It's like when he was actually honest with Joe the Plumber. He wants us to become a socialist country no matter how hard he tries to convince the New York Times and the American people otherwise.

To add to what Ed said, the reason why there is a lack of doctors is because they migrate to the US where they get paid much more. This is especially true for the more experienced and talented doctors. So, Canada and England are hemorraging the best doctors they have to the US because of their "free" healthcare system.

Also, their healthcare isn't really free. Everyone pays out the wazoo through heavy taxes to wait forever for adequate healthcare.